Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed
them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill
the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the
sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that
moves upon the earth."3
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
Ibid.
Von Rad, Genesis, p. 60.
10
Karl Bath, Church Dogmatics, 3, 2 (Edinburgh, 1960):286.
11
Ibid.
12
Helmet Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex (New York. 1964), p. 7.
9
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
Wholeness
A fourth theological insight will serve to bridge our discussion
from "male and female" to the imago Dei. In Gen 1:27 the generic
term for humankind (ha'adam) includes both male and female.
"The man and the woman together make man."13 The holistic
picture of humankind is only complete when both male and female
are viewed together. Such a description points to the individuality
and complementarity of the sexes, and will be more fully developed
in Gen 2.
Relationship
The existence of the bipolarity of the sexes in creation implies
not only wholeness but relationship. The juxtaposition of male
and female in Gen 1:26 intimates what will become explicit in
Gen 2: the full meaning of human existence is not in male or
female in isolation, but in their mutual communion. The notion
of male-female fellowship in Gen 1 has been particularly emphasized by Barth, who maintains that the "I-Thou" relationship of
male and female is the essence of the imago Dei. For Barth,
Gen 1:27c is the exposition of vs. 27a. and b. Man-in-fellowship as
male and female is what it means to be in the image of God.14
Barth's exclusive identification of the sexual distinction with
the image of God is too restrictive. Our purpose at this point is not
to enter into an extended discussion of the meaning of the imago
Dei.15 But it may be noted that the Hebrew words selem ("Image")
and demut ("likeness"), although possessing overlapping semantic
ranges, in the juxtaposition of vs. 26 appear to emphasize both the
concrete and abstract aspects of human beings,16 and together indicate that the person as a whole--both in material/bodily and
13
Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London, Eng., 1926), 1-2:61-62.
Barth's discussion of this point extends through major portions of his Church
Dogmatics, vols. 3/1, 3/2, and 3/3. See the helpful summary of his argument in
Jewett, pp. 33-48.
15
The literature on this subject is voluminous. For a survey of views, see
especially Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (Minneapolis, 1984)
pp. 147-155; G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God (Grand Rapids, MI, 1962),
pp. 67-118; Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids, MI,
1986), pp. 33-65; and cf. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality
(Philadelphia, 1978), p. 29, n. 74, for further literature.
16
See Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1953), pp. 854, 198 [hereinafter cited as
14
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
10
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
11
Gn 1 enfatiza a distino
sexual in especia humana
por que ela foi criada por
Deus particularmente para
o companheirismo,
relacionamento entre os
dois macho e fmia
12
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
That is the immense double statement, of a lapidary simplicity, so simple indeed that we hardly realize that with it a vast
world of myth and Gnostic speculation, of cynicism and asceticism, of the deification of sexuality and fear of sex completely
disappears.28
2. Sexuality in Genesis 2:4b-25
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
13
Trible, p. 80.
United Church of Christ, Human Sexuality: A Preliminary Study of the
United Church of Christ (New York, 1977), p. 57.
33
C. F. Kell, The First Book of Moses (Grand Rapids, MI, 19-19), p. 88.
34
For examples, see Samuele Bacchiocchi. Women in the Church: A Biblical
Study on the Role of Women in the Church (Berrien Springs, MI, 1987), pp. 31,
71-79: Barth, 3,1:300: 3 2:386-387; Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An
examination of the Roles of Men and Women in the Light of Scripture and the
Social Sciences (Ann Arbor, Nil, 1980), pp. 23-28; Jerry D. Colwell, "A Survey of
Recent Interpretations of Women in the Church" (Unpublished Master's Thesis,
Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, 1984); Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of
God: A Response to Biblical Feminism (Phillipsburg. NJ, 1979). pp. 61-62: S. H.
32
14
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
15
16
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
17
the plural in vs. 21 and God is said to take "one of " them, the
reference in this verse is probably to a rib from Adam's side. By
"building" Eve from one of Adam's ribs, God appears to be indicating the mutual relationship,50 the ''singleness of life,"51 the
''inseparable unity52 in which man and woman are joined. The
rib "means solidarity and equality."53 Created from Adam's "side
[rib]," Eve was formed to stand by his side as an equal. Peter
Lombard was not off the mark when he said: "Eve was not taken
from the feet of Adam to be his slave, nor from his head to be his
ruler, but from his side to be his beloved partner."54
This interpretation appears to be further confirmed by the
man's poetic exclamation when he saw the woman for the first time
(vs. 23): "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"! The
phrase "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" indicates that the
person described is "as close as one's own body."55 It denotes
physical oneness and a "commonality of concern, loyalty, and
responsibility."56 Much can be deduced from this expression regarding the nature of sexuality, as we shall see below, but the expression
certainly does not lead to the notion of woman's subordination.
Gen 2 and 3," Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 79
(1939):292, suggests that the ''rib'' is a euphemism for the birth canal which the
male lacks; P. Humbert, Etudes sur le recit du Paradis (Neuchatel, 19,10), pp. 57-58
proposes that the mention of the ''rib" explains the existence of the navel in Adam:
and von Rad, Genesis, p.. 89, finds the detail of the rib answering the question why
ribs cover the upper but not the lower part of the body". Such suggestions appear to
miss the overall context of the passage with its emphasis upon the relations/tip
between man and woman.
50
Westermann, p. 230.
51
Collins, p. 153. It may be that the Sumerian language retains the memory of
the close relationship between "rib" and "life," for the Sumerian sign it signifies
both "life'' and "rib.'' Sec S. N. Kramer, History Begins at Sumer (Garden City, NY,
1959), p. 136. This is not to say, however, that the detail of the rib in Gen 2 has its
origin in Sumrian mythology. The story of creation in Gen 2 and the Sumerian
myth in which the pun between the ''lady of the rib'' and "lady who makes live
appears (ANET, pp. 37-41), have virtually nothing in common.
52
Keil, p. 89.
53
Trible, ''Depatriarchalizing. p. 37.
54
Quoted in Stuart B. Babbage. Christianity) and Sex (Chicago, 1963), p. 10. A
Similar statement is attributed to other writers as well.
55
Collins, p. 153.
56
Walter Brueggemann, "Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gen 2:23a),'' CBQ 32
(1970):5.10.
18
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
19
Stephen Sapp, Sexuality, the Bible, and Science (Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 5-6.
Terrien, p. 18.
62
Sakae Kubo, Theology and Ethics of Sex (Washington, DC, 1980), p. 19.
61
20
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
and the narrative instructs us, that "man is whole only in his
complementarity with another being who is like unto himself."63
A Multi-dimensional Relationship
Closely connected with "complementary wholeness" is the idea
of relationship. If Gen 1 whispers that human sexuality is for
fellowship, for relationship, Gen 2 orchestrates this fact with a
volume of double forte, and the melody and harmony of the narrative portray richness and beauty in the relational symphony of
the sexes.
According to Gen 2, the creation of Eve takes place in the
context of loneliness. The keynote is struck in vs. 18: "It is not
good that the man should be alone...." The "underlying idea" of
vss. 18-24 is that "sexuality finds its meaning not in the appropriation of divine creative powers, but in human sociality."64 Man is a
social being; sexuality is for sociality, for relationship, companionship, partnership. In principle, this passage may be seen to affirm
the various mutual social relationships that should take place
between the sexes (as is also true with the "image-of-God" passage
in Gen 1); but more specifically, the Genesis account links the
concept of sociality to the marriage relationship. This is apparent
from 2:24: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and
cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." The introductory
"therefore" indicates that the relationship of Adam and Eve is
upheld as the ideal for all future human sexual relationships.
Certain significant insights into the nature of sexuality call for
attention in this verse.
First, man leaves. The word azab is a forceful term. It means
literally "to abandon, forsake," and is employed frequently to
describe Israel's forsaking of Yahweh for false gods.65 The "leaving"
of Gen 2:24 indicates the necessity of absolute freedom from outside
interferences in the sexual relationship. Barth has pointed out that
in a very real sense Gen 2 represents the "Old Testament Magna
Charta of humanity" as Adam was allowed freely and exuberantly
63
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
21
Barth, 3/2:291.
Some leave seen behind this passage a hint of a matriarchal social structure,
but evidence lot such an hypothesis is not convincing. For further discussion of this
theory, see Jewett. p. 127.
68
See BDB, pp. 179-180; G. Wahlis, qbaDA dabaq,'' TDOT, 3:80-83; Earl S.
Kalland, "qbaDA (dabaq)," TWOT, 1:177-178.
69
See, e.g., Deut 10:20; 11:22: 13:1; Josh 22:5; 23:8.
70
For discussion of the covenant language used by Adam, see Brueggemann,
pp. 532-542.
71
Collins, p. 153.
67
22
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON
both nouns in the singular--clearly implies that the sexual relationship envisioned is a monogamous one, to be shared exclusively
between two marriage partners. The LXX translation makes this
point explicit: "they two shall become one flesh."
The "one-flesh" relationship certainly involves the sexual
union; sexual intercourse. The physical act of coitus may even be
in view in this passage as the primary means of establishing the
"innermost mystery'"72 of oneness. But this is by no means all that
is included. The term basar, "flesh," in the OT refers not only to
one's physical body but to a person's whole existence in the world.73
By "one flesh" is thus connoted "mutual dependence and reciprocity
in all areas of life,"74 a "unity that embraces the natural lives of
two persons in their entirety."75 It indicates a oneness and intimacy
in the total relationship of the whole person of the husband to the
whole person of the wife.76
Sexuality for Procreation
With regard to Gen 1 we noted that a primary purpose of
sexuality was for personal relationship, and that procreation was
presented as a special added blessing. The significance of the unitive
purpose of sexuality is highlighted in Gen 2 by the complete
absence of any reference to the propagation of children. This omission is not to deny the importance of procreation (as becomes
apparent in later chapters of Scripture). But by the "full-stop"77
after "one-flesh" in vs. 24, sexuality is given independent meaning
and value. It does not need to be justified only as a means to a
superior end, i.e., procreation.
The Wholesomeness of Sexuality
The narrative of Gen 2 highlights the divine initiative and
approbation in the relationship of the sexes. After the formation of
72
Otto Piper, The Biblical View of Sex and Marriage (New York, 1960),
pp. 52-67, explores the possible dimensions of this "inner mystery."
73
See John N. Oswalt, "rWABA (basar)," TWOT, 1:136; N.P. Bratsiotis, "rWABA
basar," TDOT, 2:325-329.
74
Piper, p. 28.
75
Ibid., p. 25.
76
Herbert J. and Fern Miles, Husband-Wife Equality (Old Tappan, NJ, 1978),
p. 164.
77
Walter Trobisch, I Married You (New York, 1971), p. 20.
THEOLOGY OF SEXUALITY
23
woman, the Lord God "brought her to the man" (vs. 22). The
Creator Himself, as it were, celebrated the first marriage.78 Thus,
the "very good" which is pronounced upon humankind and human
sexuality in Gen 1 is in Gen 2 concretized in the divine solemnization of the "one-flesh'' union between husband and wife.
Sexuality is wholesome because it is inaugurated by God himself. Since the inauguration occurs within the context of a divinehuman relationship, sexuality must be seen to encompass not
only horizontal (human) but also vertical (spiritual) dimensions.
According to the divine design, the sexual relationship between
husband and wife is inextricably bound up with the spiritual unity
of both man and woman with their Creator.
A final word on God's Edenic ideal for sexuality comes in vs.
25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not
ashamed." The Hebrew construction of the last English phrase
may be more accurately translated "they were not ashamed before
one another."79 Viewed in contrast with the "utter [shameful]
nakedness"80 mentioned in Gen 3, the intent here is clear: namely,
that "shameless sexuality was divinely ordered; shameful sexuality
is the result of sin."81 According to God's original design, sexuality
is wholesome, beautiful, and good. It is meant to be experienced
between spouses without fear, without inhibitions, without shame
and embarrassment.
Just as the "one-flesh" experience applied to more than the
physical union, so the concept of nakedness probably connotes
more than physical nudity.82 As Walter Trobisch states it, there is
implied the ability ''to stand in front of each other, stripped and
undisguised, without pretensions, without hiding, seeing the partner as he or she really is, and showing myself to him or her as I
really am--and still not be ashamed."83
78
See Brueggemann, pp. 538-542, for evidence for linguistic and contextual
indications of a covenant-making ceremony.
79
BDB. p. 102.
80
This wil1 be discussed in a subsequent article, "The Theology of Sexuality in
the Beginning: Genesis 3." forthcoming in AUSS.
81
Collins, p. 154.
82
See Kidner, p. 66: Vs. 25 indicates "the perfect ease between them." The theory
that Adam's and Eve's nakedness without shame refers to their lack of consciousness
of their Sexuality Will be orated in my forthcoming article (See n. 80, above).
83 Trobisch, p. 82.
24
RICHARD M. DAVIDSON